Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 20STCV09369, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09369    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Plaintiff Irma Rodriguez’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file the First Amended Complaint within 20 days of the issuance of this Order.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This is action for wrongful discharge. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff Irma Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) was employed by defendant Direct Therapy S&P, Corporation (“DT”) as a speech therapist for children. (Compl. ¶ 8.) DT scheduled Rodriguez’s home therapy appointments very close together, such that she did not have sufficient travel time between appointments and was frequently late. (Ibid.) The heavy scheduling caused stress and anxiety that aggravated her depression and anxiety. (Ibid.) She wrote to DT management by text about this issue on October 18, 2019, and DT terminated Rodriguez on October 19, 2019. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On March 10, 2020, Rodriguez filed the Complaint asserting five causes of action:

1.    Wrongful Discharge in Violation of FEHA;

2.    Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy;

3.    Failure to Engage in a Timely Good Faith Interactive Process;

4.    Failure to Produce a Complete Personnel File; and

5.    Failure to Produce all Itemized Wage Statements.

On May 11, 2020, DT filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. That Motion was granted.

On February 7, 2022, Rodriguez filed an Ex Parte Application to Lift Arbitration Stay and for an Order Scheduling a Jury Trial.

On February 9, 2022, the Court granted Rodriguez’s Ex Parte Application.

On February 15, 2022, Rodriguez filed the instant Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.

No Opposition has been filed.

DISCUSSION 

I.               MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Irma Rodriguez moves the Court for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

When a party moves to amend a pleading, “courts generally should permit amendment to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial. [Citations.]” (Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 175.) In ruling on this type of motion, prejudice to another party is the main concern. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486.) The type of prejudice the court is to be concerned with should be something beyond simply having to cope with a potentially successful new legal theory of recovery that has been revealed during discovery. (Ibid.) Instead, the court should look for delays in the trial date, loss of critical evidence, extensive increase in the costs of preparation and other similar circumstances that create prejudice to another party. (Melican, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 176.) 

Here, Rodriguez seeks to add DT’s Chief Financial Officer Isaac Archer (“Archer”) as a Defendant, and to add four new causes of action against Archer for violation of state and federal laws that prohibit accessing, without consent, confidential and private electronically stored information.

The behavior necessitating this amendment occurred while arbitration was pending. On May 28, 2021, Archer secretly accessed Rodriguez’s confidential Yahoo account and viewed private and confidential electronic information stored in the account. The arbitrator ordered the parties to jointly retain a forensic computer expert to assess the issue, and the expert confirmed that Archer had accessed the account. (Bernstein Decl., ¶ 6.)

The parties stipulated to an order by which Archer was added as a respondent to the arbitration and stipulated that Rodriguez could amend her arbitration demand to include the same four causes of action she seeks to add here. (Bernstein Decl., ¶ 7.)

The arbitration was dismissed on February 2, 2022, and Rodriguez filed an ex parte application to lift the arbitration stay on February 9, 2022. (Bernstein Decl., ¶¶ 8-9.) The Court notes that the instant motion was filed under a week following the lifting of that stay, meaning there was no delay in seeking to amend the Complaint.

As there is good cause to amend the Complaint, as no Opposition has been filed, and as Rodriguez did not delay in seeking leave to amend, the Court GRANTS Rodriguez’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. Rodriguez is to file the proposed First Amended Complaint within 20 days of the issuance of this Order.

DATED:  August 9, 2022

___________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court